? said...
the answer is easy. You can't keep territory acquired through war. It doesn't matter if it was a defensive war. Egypt wants to renew hostilities, fine. Doesn't change anything about the legal status of the Sinai.
And if the question is somehow directed at the Egyptians, as a warning to them that Israel was so charitable in returning the Sinai, and that it has lived up to its part of the bargain, so to speak, and that Israel is thumping its chest over how easily it might retake the Sinai in a war, then this is actually a more petty, foolish brush with war than the Egyptian calls to "revisit" the treaty, because it threatens Egypt's territorial integrity, which is the most basic casus belli.
All in all, a worthless retort in response to Egyptian reservations over the peace deal. No one in Egypt is going to start a war with Israel, and if they threatened one, talking about the Sinai as if it ought to be Israel's or as if Israel welcomes war is ridiculous.
Also, when they talk about canceling the peace deal with Israel in Egypt, it's awfully clear what fuels the rhetoric. Populists, Pan-Arab nationalists and Islamists stoke fires with Israel over the Palestinian issue. Egypt has no beef with Israel, other than using it as an excuse to assert leadership in the Arab world, and that is a far less useful or relevant tool than it was in the 50s, 60s and 70s, as the Saudis--and the Egyptians themselves--have proven.
In this regard, it may be useful to have some inward examination. The average Egyptian isn't interested in an Islamic Caliphate or in using Egyptian blood and treasure to sink Israel into the sea. But sympathy with the Palestinians remains. That was one of Sadat's token provisions in the 1979 agreements, a provision for Palestinian autonomy, which was never implemented and which is seen as remaining unimplemented in spite of Oslo, because the issue is of Palestinian self-determination is completely at a halt.
?Elias said...
Hey @I Tick, it's interesting that when I plugged the phrase, "territory acquired through war" into Google, the top, and only really relevant result, was the Wikipedia article on United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. So... I guess this rule only really applies to Israel and the Jews. Nice...
? said...
I am not responsible for your poor understanding of law, history or using the Internet.
As I recall, there was a little war in 1991. Something about international action against the violation of territorial integrity in the Middle East that didn't (directly) involve Israel or the Jews...
? said...
One of the problems with a peace treaty, without a dedication to peace, is that if violated the non violating party has twp responses, accept the violation (surrender) or war.
Nobody will back an Israeli demand for the return of the Sinai. A reality Israel should remember when dealing with abbas/hamas/plo/fatah
? said...
And something else in 1948 and 1949...hmm...about an Arab country claiming it went to war to defend its fellow Arabs against "Zionist aggression," and yet its claims of territory acquired in that war were rejected by the whole world except for Britain...
? said...
I do not know that the world really cares about issues of territorial integrity. I do not remember great cries against Turkey invading the waters of Israel in the problem of the Mavi Marmara. Even today, Turkey want an apology - this is backwards. When Hamas shoot bombs into Sderot or Ashkelon, the only report you will read in international news is if Israel try to defend herself, and then somehow it is our fault. Would anyone dare to tell America that it needs to free Guam, Philippines and Puerto Rice, captured in the Spanish American War? Of course not. Israel is held to a different standard.
I remember finishing my army service in 1977 and spending a month camping with friends in the Sinai. It is an incredible place, especially to see it just before the Pesach. While it may have been the correct thing to do to exchange it for peace at the time, it is so much a shame that we can no longer go there.
However, if the Egyptian do not put Sinai back to proper control, if they allow the Hamas from Gaza or even Beduoins or Egyptians to use the Sinai to attack land or people or ship access to the Red Sea/Gulf of Eilat, then we would have to consider this an act of war and respond.
Please understand that I do not want another war. In war there are no winners. But Egypt must take responsibility for their action or inaction. If they can not or will not then Israel must.
? said...
I can't find a map pre 1948 that show that the Sinai was part of Egypt. Can you tell me where to find one?
? said...
If you can't keep land taken in war,,,, does tht mean that all our land taken by ROME must be returned to the Israelite peope ?? That would include the land on the other side of the Jordan river that the Bridish gave to a tribe from the southern arabian lpeninsula, as well as the Sinia because at the time of the Roman conquest it WAS OUR land !
? said...
What about Gaza? There is no "easy" as put forth by some here. I think you can keep what ever you are willing to defend.
?Unknown said...
I guess England will have to return Northern Ireland. The borders of all the North American countries and states will have to be reassigned. There will be problems on the Indian subcontinent ... I foresee many problems.
?Am Kshe Oref - A Stiff-Necked People said...
Funny. I've asked the same question. I hope we'll be able to rebuild Yamit...
? said...
Texas. California. Both acquired in s eparate wars with Spain or Mexico. The rest of north America was taken from the native people.
Go back far enough and there is no part of the Earth that was not subject to the spoils of war.
The question is one of "will" not " war."
? said...
It is worth mentioning (re: I Tick's comment re: sympathy with the Palestinians) that when Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt (in return for...) Israel offered to also give Egypt back the Gaza Strip, and Egypt refused it. Seems they were having some problems with terrorists coming from the Strip, and didn't want to be saddled with it. Sympathy? We may close the crossing to Gaza on one side, but who has completely cut Gaza off on the other? Why isn't Egypt sending truckloads of food, clothing, building materials &tc. into Gaza at least at the rate that Israel does? Why doesn't Egypt allow the Gaza-residing Palestinians to enter Egypt for humanitarian reasons as Israel does, for instance for medical care or to attend university? Whatever the 'common man' in Egypt has a problem with regarding Israel, to say it is about how Israelis treat the Palestinians is foolish and ignorant.
? said...
To above: Easy!. Egypt does not want to be a welfare state like we do!.
? said...
First and foremost: the Sinai never belonged to anyone legally. It was captured by Israel in the Six Day War but never annexed or made part of Israel (except it was great to travel and tour around and camp out there and see the oil wells etc). When Israel 'gave back' the Sinai for a 'peace/piss treaty (as Anwar Sadat called it in the Knesset) it was not Israel's to give to Egypt nor Egypt's to receive. So where does that leave us. We have learned nothing from history -past or current! The Gaza strip area is not 'hamas land', Sinai is ruled by Bedouin tribes/gangs who are the worst criminals -rip out body parts to sell to anyone who is willing to pay for them and then we ask re the ethics of those physicians who 'install' them), who blow up pipelines, who rob and steal at will etc.
So where does that answer your question. We are headed to war again in our area with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Gaza and others occupied by hostile people who would kill each other (Syria, Libia, Egypt) at will. It will probably take a war to decide but if Egypt breaks the so called piss-treaty then where do we go and how do we do it. Pesach
Source: http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/legal-question.html
mild kidney failure presidential candidates celebrity wife swap gla
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.